4.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
About the Author
Roger N. McDermott is an Affiliated Senior Analyst, Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen, Senior International Fellow, FMSO, Fort Leavenworth,
Advisory Scholar, Military Affairs, Centre for Research on Canadian-Russian Relations (CRCR), Georgian College Ontario, Canada, and Senior Fellow in Eurasian
Military Studies, Jamestown Foundation, Washington, DC; he has also served
as a visiting Professor in the Department of International Relations, Kazakhstan
National University, Almaty. McDermott has briefed Western planning staffs and
lectured at the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany. He specializes in Russian
and Central Asian defence and security and is a member of the editorial board of
Central Asia and the Caucasus and The Caucasus and Globalization, and a member
of the scientific board, Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies. He has
extensive experience of Kazakhstan’s defence and security policy and published
numerous articles on the reform of the country’s armed forces and steps towards
building peacekeeping forces.
4

5.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
1. Introduction
Central Asia has always played a vital role in Western defence planning policy in
relation to Afghanistan ever since Operation Enduring Freedom commenced in
2001 in the aftermath of the meta-terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
The Western military deployment into Afghanistan was supported at an early
stage by agreeing access to military facilities within Central Asia, notably the
US military base at Kharshi-Khanabad (K2) in Uzbekistan and the airbase at
Manas near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The Central Asian states have also stepped up
their participation in bilateral security assistance programmes and the NATO
Partnership for Peace (Pf P).
NATO’s subsequent involvement in the efforts to stabilize Afghanistan meant that
the Central Asian contribution to support such operations, albeit indirectly, served
to solidify new partnerships in the region itself. The closure of K2 in 2005 did not
mitigate the need for continued access to Central Asian military facilities, and
the later revamping of the original basing agreement with Bishkek witnessed the
transition of the Manas airbase into a ‘transit centre’ through which supplies and
troops could be moved into the theatre of operations in Afghanistan. Central Asia
again became the subject of increased attention due to the pressure on the Ground
Lines of Communication (GLOC) taking supplies to the International Security
Assistance Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan from Pakistan. The search for durable and
cost-effective alternative GLOCs to ease the pressure on the Pakistan GLOC resulted
in the creation of the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) to take supplies from
the Baltic Sea ports overland through Russia and Central Asia.
The NDN and the cooperation of the Central Asian governments was again the focus
of Western planning staffs’ attention as a result of the declared intention to draw
down the deployed combat forces in Afghanistan by 2014. NATO and its members
were faced with the problem of how to remove military hardware from Afghanistan
in a comparatively short timeframe that had taken over a decade to build up in the
country; the so-called ‘reverse transit’ options using the NDN brought Central Asian
capitals deeper into the planning process.1
However, as the drawdown of military forces from Afghanistan approaches in 2014,
western capitals are also considering the potential implications for the wider security
of Central Asia. The following study examines the perspectives and planning options
5

6.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
in two of the leading states in Central Asia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Among the
policy issues explored that are linked to the 2014 drawdown are the extent to which
there may be potential to encourage a regional approach to security, or whether the
NATO exit from Afghanistan may result in common policy positions or shared
interests among the Central Asian states.2
These themes are explored using open sources, making comparisons where possible
with the national security documents of each state in order to highlight differences
or the various themes in their defence and security policies. Additionally, extensive
use was made of research interviews with the expert communities in each country,
conducted on an off-the-record basis in order to facilitate a free exchange of ideas
and move beyond the predictable responses of experts who often work or research
in their fields with close governmental links.
The results demonstrate a varied and often directly opposite interpretation of the
implications of the drawdown between Astana and Tashkent, and even the issue the
level of potential threat stemming from post-2014 Afghanistan is widely different
in each capital.3 Moreover, the following analysis also seeks to explore the inherent
weaknesses in the national threat assessments in these countries, and questions
the extent to which either may fully know or have the capacity to formulate an
accurate threat assessment linked to the risks connected to the post-2014 security
environment.4 Despite this, each country remains confident that it can deal with any
negative downturn in the security of Central Asia linked to post-2014 Afghanistan,
although this is demonstrated in diverse ways.
Policy planners will also be interested to know how these capitals view the various
multilateral routes to bolster security through the Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO) or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Each
country possesses different views on these organizations and their potential to
contribute to longer-term regional security.
The main conclusion of this work is that there is simply no such thing as a ‘Central
Asian’ perspective on the drawdown from Afghanistan, but in fact a quite divergent
and often contradictory set of views depending on the capital in question. Kazakhstan
sees little reason to change its defence and security policy as a result of the NATO
exit from Afghanistan and does not place a high priority on an Afghanistan-linked
security threat post-2014. Uzbekistan, on the other hand, continues to consider that
Afghanistan represents the main source of national security threat to the country,
6

7.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
and it is taking steps to prepare for a negative result to the end of NATO combat
operations in Afghanistan in 2014.
7

8.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
2. Background: National Capacities in
Threat Assessment
Forming a deeper policy-oriented understanding of governmental perspectives in
Central Asia’s capitals on the complex process of withdrawing NATO forces from
Afghanistan and ceasing combat operations in the country by 2014 demands an
awareness of the limits of national threat assessment.5 How does each of these states
conduct its national threat assessments? What levels of professional standard exist
among the national intelligence agencies, and how does this feed into or mitigate
accurate reporting to government concerning often very spontaneous or elusive
threats and targets?
Moreover, to what extent do the countries in Central Asia possess the capacity to
conduct threat assessment, and where might they place Afghanistan-linked threats
or the possible consequences of the NATO drawdown of forces in their scales
of priority threats? These questions also lead us to consider how the key states in
Central Asia – Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan – perceive threats originating from
Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan, as well as how they both regard national security capacity
in these neighbouring states.6 Understanding some of the underlying institutional
and analytical weaknesses in these capitals and their capacity to produce independent
threat assessments also offers insight into their potential to trace and disrupt potential
militant activity in their countries, and indeed to tackle security issues more generally.
This approach also demands, where possible, some comparison of security documents
or at least some indication of how high an Afghanistan-related threat perception
might be in the national security priorities of these countries, especially in Astana and
Tashkent. It also highlights the continued importance of Russia in terms of assistance
in producing threat assessments. Paradoxically, in countries such as Kyrgyzstan or
Tajikistan, the national capacity to produce and plan for threat assessment and its
implications for policy-making, or longer term security strategy, is the weakest in
the region.7
Sources of weakness in threat assessment and
actionable intelligence
In general terms, the production of threat assessments in Central Asian states involves
a process of coordination between the various ministries within their national security
8

9.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
structures.8 All countries in the region share the Soviet legacy within the civil service
bureaucracy and intelligence agencies, the latter being the successors to the Soviet
KGB. Some additional general observations should be noted concerning these bodies
and power ministries in order to contextualize the problem of producing accurate
threat assessments.9
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan share broad similarities, though
with some key differences, in the area of threat assessment capacities. Under the
president in each state, the security structures involved in protecting the state and
formulating threat assessments are the interior ministry, defence ministry and
national security committee (the latter in each state is the KGB successor and is
tasked with the lead role in intelligence). In addition there is the border service,
which, except in Kyrgyzstan, is subordinate to the National Security Committee or
the emergencies ministry (MchS). Finally there is the Security Council, which usually
plays a coordinating role.10 However, none of these countries is particularly known
for its capacity to facilitate what is commonly referred to as ‘joined up government,’
which means that the security bodies may not fully share relevant information in
inter-agency terms; inter-agency rivalry and bureaucratic issues can only fester within
such systems.11
The lead role in detecting threats to the state within each country therefore belongs
to the KGB successor intelligence service. A critical point must be noted, based
not only on the Soviet legacy and the fact that many of these agencies are staffed
at senior levels by former KGB officers, but related to the political systems within
which they operate. Their fundamental role is not to protect the state, but the regime
and power of oligarchs, the president being the chief among these. This means that,
unlike intelligence officers functioning within liberal democracies, a significant
portion of man hours is spent by Central Asian intelligence services spying on the
domestic political opposition, or even on business figures and foreigners entering the
country.12 This is the basic flaw in their ability to conduct accurate and timely threat
assessments, but there are a myriad of other failings, which may only be tested in the
face of real security threats.13
Each Central Asian intelligence service suffers from inherent institutional and
personnel weaknesses that reflect historical developments, the political culture, and
fissures in their intelligence collection capacities. These agencies are mainly overly
centralized, with only Kazakhstan possessing an independent foreign intelligence
service, and they all have similar staffing issues. Central Asian intelligence officers
9

10.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
are not recruited on the basis of merit or educational background, but as in other
areas of the economy they find posts through family and clan patronage networks.
This, combined with the presence of former KGB officers in their senior ranks,
limits the scope for these agencies to transform themselves to meet modern threats
and challenges.14
Moreover, in addition to time spent monitoring the activities of the political opposition,
these agencies are also engaged in activities linked to the shadow economy. It is not
uncommon for their personnel to be involved in targeting business interests for bribes,
or to be part of the activities they are allegedly tasked with assessing, such as drug
trafficking. In addition, a weakness in signals intelligence affects all the intelligence
agencies in Central Asia, leaving them heavily reliant on bilateral intelligence
cooperation with their Russian counterparts. In open source intelligence (OSINT),
the main sources are produced by the Russian media, contributing to the level of
Russification contained in any assessments.15
Linked to this inherent challenge is the lack of a developed and established independent
network of domestic think tanks and security analysis experts. Intelligence officers
in these capitals searching for open source material in their collection cycle largely
depend on Russian media sources or major Russian think-tank studies.16 This also stems
from the under-developed network of think tanks, and within governmental circles
often a disregard for domestic analytical expertise. An additional factor that serves
to limit the utility of OSINT in Central Asian intelligence services is also common
in Russia, namely under-estimating its importance. Unlike their counterparts in
liberal democracies, these intelligence officers tend to place too much value on secret
human intelligence (HUMINT) sources and underestimate the value of OSINT.17
Within the national intelligence structures in the region, there is also an underlying
weakness in connection to strategic planning: they lack strategic-level intelligence
analysis. These agencies also, much like their Russian colleagues, tend to depend
on mirror images in their analysis of foreign states; in other words they perceive
foreign states not as they are, but as a reflection of their own mind sets, prejudices
and political cultures.18
As already noted, these weaknesses are most acute in the smaller Central Asian states,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, where any possible upsurge in militant activity linked
to Afghanistan may most likely occur. These countries rely heavily on other actors,
particularly Russia, for their security, especially in conducting threat assessments.19
10

11.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
Before looking at Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan more closely in this regard, it is worth
noting that the ‘fear’ aroused by the local intelligence agencies among the populations
in these countries pales into insignificance compared to the enduring fear of Russian
intelligence.20 What little fear or respect can be commanded in these states by the
KGB successor agency relates to their ability to target business interests or selective
individuals such as journalists and extract information or simply spread fear.21
Militants, extremists, drug traffickers and others posing a potential threat to these
states are relatively free to conduct their businesses, and are often only discovered by
accident or when it is too late.
As a consequence of these institutional weaknesses, the intelligence services in
Central Asia struggle to locate, track and disrupt militant or terrorist activities due to
capacity issues.22 Moreover, it is in this area that each state lacks sufficient developed
apparatus and security capacities to assess and report accurately to government on
the emergence of new threats or trends. How they assess militant activity linked to
Afghanistan and the NATO drawdown of forces is certainly open to question in
terms of both quality and capacity.23
Although many of these features are present within Kazakhstan’s security and
intelligence structures, it is the only regional power to have taken the step of
separating domestic and foreign intelligence based on the National Security
Committee (Komitet Natsionalnoy Bezopasnosti—KNB).24 In February 2009,
reportedly due to domestic political considerations, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan
Nazarbayev abolished the ‘Barlau’ department in the KNB, which was tasked with
foreign intelligence, and created a new and separate foreign intelligence service,
Syrbar. This may have stemmed from concern within the regime about the dispute
with Rakhat Aliev, the exiled former son-in-law of the president, and a fear that the
KNB may exercise too much power in domestic politics in the future.25 However,
this decision resulted in the creation of a new and still relatively inexperienced
intelligence service in the country.
Although Syrbar has its own website, there is still little reporting on the new
organization. It is not possible to glean from open sources how it was formed or
what its staffing policies are.26 At least initially, it is probable that Syrbar was reliant
upon staffing from the KNB. Indeed, after only three years, the organization is still
in its infancy, and given the lack of capacity already noted such as access to signals
intelligence assets or reliance upon the Russian intelligence services, it is unlikely
to be able to make genuinely independent threat assessments any time soon.27
11

12.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
Kazakhstan has also made changes to its counter-terrorist structures in response to
its experience of terrorism or terrorist incidents since 2011. These attacks, including
suicide bombings and incidents close to KNB buildings in remote parts of the
country, exposed how limited the existing intelligence apparatus is in offering the
government any warning of impending security risks, or in being able to determine
rapidly the origin or nature of this threat.28 Astana has thus acted in a structural and
organizational manner to demonstrate some level of response to these new threats
and challenges, without actually addressing any of the deeper weaknesses within its
intelligence apparatus.
Paradoxically an inadvertent outcome of the wave of terrorist incidents in Kazakhstan
has been to stimulate counter-terrorist and intelligence cooperation at a bilateral level
with Uzbekistan’s security structures. Astana appears interested in drawing upon its
neighbour’s experience of terrorism, and up to a point the KNB is not only cooperating
more actively with its counterparts in Uzbekistan, but arguably also learning about
Tashkent’s approaches to counter-terrorism.29 Some analysts see such developments,
rightly or wrongly, as representing the beginnings of a concerted effort by Astana and
Tashkent to act as the driving forces in reforming the existing security architecture
in Central Asia ahead of 2014. Nonetheless, this security cooperation seems much
more narrowly targeted on terrorism, and it may not serve to overcome institutional
and political barriers in the path of grander schemes.30
Uzbekistan, on the other hand, unlike its neighbour, continues to unite domestic
and foreign intelligence in the powerful hands of the National Security Service
(Sluhzba Natsionalnoy Bazapasnosti–SNB). The SNB has witnessed little change
in substance or structure since it was the Uzbek Republic’s KGB department. It
has three departments: foreign intelligence (2nd), counter-intelligence and signals
intelligence (6th); the 2nd and 6th departments were transferred to the SNB from
military intelligence in 1996. The SNB maintains its own paramilitary structures and
controls the border service. It is considered the key to ensuring regime survivability
and stability, and is widely regarded as the leading intelligence agency in Central Asia
in terms of its overall capacity.31
Despite its reputation as the leading intelligence service in the region, the SNB also
suffers from similar institutional weaknesses, though with some distinctions. Its
tasking and requirements mean that it spends a great deal of time on non-security
threats by monitoring opposition figures, civil society organizations and their family
members, individuals out of favour with the regime, or in targeting elements of the
12

13.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
shadow economy; it is common knowledge, for instance, that its officers are involved
in disrupting illegal money-changing services in the local bazaars. In terms of threat
assessment the SNB may be more independent of Moscow in its ability to collect
and analyse data, though some critics argue that it has the closest relationship with
Russian intelligence of any other Central Asian state.32
The limited capacity of intelligence agencies and officers in these countries to perform
the core tasks of assessing and determining or disrupting threats to national security
explains their weak ability to report accurately on the nature of these threats to their
governments.33 This represents the single greatest barrier in the path of any Central
Asian capital in examining the potential implications to their security linked to the
NATO drawdown in Afghanistan. Equally, the lack of, in some cases, or endemic
institutional flaws concerning strategic-level intelligence suggests that not all capitals
in the region are able to plan adequately for 2014.
Consequently, the broad range of views between each Central Asian state on
Afghanistan and the security environment after 2014 lacks any consensus; this mainly
results from the undulating nature of national intelligence capacities.34 Analysis
of public statements and security documents in Central Asia shows that in some
countries the potential for any Afghanistan-linked threat to emerge as a domestic
challenge after 2014 is not taken seriously, while in others it is viewed differently and
seen as more pressing.
Threats to regional and national security seen from Astana
and Tashkent
It is vitally important for Western policy-makers to grasp the disparity in Central
Asia over the extent of threat perception on Afghanistan; each capital has its own
distinctive views. Moreover, there is no agreement on whether 2014 will mark a
turning point and lead to a deterioration in security within Central Asia, though in
the view of some experts in Central Asia nothing will really change. In the smaller
states, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, these views also differ sharply.
In Tajikistan’s last published Military Doctrine in 2005, the security document outlines
the main threats to the country and pays almost no attention to Afghanistan. Security
thinking in Dushanbe therefore places very little emphasis on terrorism or inter-state
conflict, and more on drug trafficking, organized crime or separatism – in other words
the indirect impact of Afghanistan-related transnational threats. Section two states:
13

14.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
The key factors responsible for the sources of military threat are or could be:
• the uneven economic development of the region’s states as they transition to
market relations and the increasing socio-economic stratification into different
social groups inside the states;
• the ongoing and escalating regional, ethnic and religious animosities, which
destabilize both the domestic and regional situation;
• internal armed conflicts;
• the rise in drug trafficking, international terrorism, extremism and illegal migration;
• the effort of some countries to establish their exclusive military-political influence in Central Asia and their commitment to resolving conflicts through force;
• the formation of powerful armed groupings or military bases of coalition states
in countries bordering Tajikistan;
• territorial claims against Tajikistan.
The factors escalating the direct military threat to Tajikistan are:
• higher level of combat readiness of strategic offensive forces in areas from which
Tajikistan can be struck;
• build-up of force groupings on Tajikistan’s border to a level that upsets the sides’
existing balance of forces.35
It is interesting to note that Afghanistan is not mentioned directly in the document,
but only by reference to transnational threats stemming from the country; these
are ‘drug trafficking, international terrorism, extremism.’ Yet, this is not assigned as
high a threat priority as the ‘uneven economic development’ within the region. Also,
the main potential military threats to Tajikistan’s national security do not relate to
Afghanistan at all.36
In stark contrast, Kyrgyzstan stands out most clearly in Central Asia as assigning the
highest degree of importance in its security documents to Afghanistan. It is explicit,
and even goes as far as to make links to the NATO drawdown. In July 2012, Bishkek
passed a new National Security Concept (NSC).37 Section one of the 2012 NSC states:
The situation in Afghanistan continues to be a key threat to the stability of
Central Asia since the country’s leaders still face major challenges to resolve
fundamental socio-economic, political and military problems.38
14

15.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
This is the clearest statement of its kind in the security documents published in the
region. It adds in section three:
A serious threat to security throughout the region is posed by the complex militarypolitical situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where terrorism and religious
extremism have concentrated their main ideological and combatant forces and
the special training camps of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the Jihad Group or Islamic
Jihad Union and others. In the contemporary context, especially following the
2014 US and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, this will create real conditions
for emissaries and militants of these organizations to move in and fuel terrorist
and extremist manifestations in Central Asia, including Kyrgyzstan.39
Bishkek not only places Afghanistan at the top of the potential risks to its own security,
but links this factor to a possible worsening of security in Central Asia after the US
and NATO drawdown from Afghanistan is complete in 2014. The document is
also less diplomatic concerning the Afghanistan factor and the transnational threats
facing the region:
Afghanistan remains the epicentre of drug traffic expansion into Central Asia,
from where there is an ever-increasing volume of illegal drugs into Russia and
the East European markets along the so-called ‘north route’ through Central
Asia, which is used as a transit corridor.40
While there are differences between Dushanbe and Bishkek in threat perceptions
regarding Afghanistan, each country recognizes that it must seek varied security
partnerships to mitigate the impact of its own weak military and security forces.
Each country is also very active in pursuing as much assistance as possible for their
militaries and security bodies from US aid programmes, or with other countries
bilaterally or even through multilateral donor sources.41
The level of disagreement among the Central Asian states on the potential security
threat stemming from Afghanistan post-2014 is even more pronounced if we
compare these documents from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to official views in Astana.
Kazakhstan’s 2011 Military Doctrine pays only scant attention to Afghanistan: in
fact, of its four Military Doctrines issued since 1993, the 2011 Military Doctrine is
the first even to name Afghanistan.42 Section 3.1 outlines the external and domestic
threats to national security as follows:
15

16.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
External military security threats to the Republic of Kazakhstan include:
1. socio-political instability in the region and the likelihood of armed provocations;
2. military conflict flashpoints close to Kazakhstan’s borders;
3. use by foreign nations or organizations of military-political pressure and advanced
information-psychological warfare technologies to interfere in Kazakhstan’s
internal affairs to further their own interests;
4. increasing influence of military-political organizations and unions to the detriment
of Kazakhstan’s military security;
5. the activity of international terrorist and radical organizations and groups, including
cyber terrorism and growing religious extremism in neighboring countries;
6. production by some countries of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery
vehicles, and illegal proliferation of the technologies, equipment and components
used to manufacture them, as well as of dual purpose technologies.
Domestic military security threats could include:
1. extremist, nationalist and separatist movements, organizations and structures
seeking to destabilize the domestic situation and change the constitutional order
through armed methods;
2. illegal armed groups;
3. illegal proliferation of weapons, munitions, explosives and other devices that
could be used for sabotage, terrorist acts or other illegal actions.43
Indeed, Kazakhstan’s 2011 Military Doctrine places four threats to national security
above terrorism: socio-political instability within Central Asia and possible conflicts,
flashpoints on its periphery, state actors using information tools to pressure the state,
and the potentially negative influence of political-military organizations.44 In the
preamble to the same section Afghanistan is mentioned, but only loosely and in a
wider context:
At the same time, the uneven distribution of natural resources, the widening
gap between developed and developing countries, different approaches to
national socio-political systems, and other negative aspects of globalization
could exacerbate antagonisms between nations, with military and other
coercive means being used to resolve them. The situation in Central Asia could
deteriorate due to the persistent instability in Afghanistan, socio-political
tensions in the region, border-territorial and water problems, and economic,
16

17.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
religious and other antagonisms that are being resolved through less than ideal
mechanisms. Drug trafficking and illegal migration have become transnational
problems.45
It is especially revealing to compare the statement in Kazakhstan’s 2011 Military
Doctrine, signed into law by President Nazarbayev in October 2011, with the language
expressed in the Kyrgyz 2012 NSC. Kazakhstan’s 2011 Military Doctrine downplays
the potential for instability in Central Asia as a consequence of the drawdown in
Afghanistan: ‘The situation in Central Asia could deteriorate due to the persistent
instability in Afghanistan’: in other words, in the official view of Kazakhstan’s security
elite this represents at best a ‘maybe.’46
Not so in Bishkek, given the clarity in the 2012 NSC: ‘In the contemporary context,
especially following the 2014 US and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, this will
create real conditions for emissaries and militants of these organizations to move in
and fuel terrorist and extremist manifestations in Central Asia…’ Bishkek represents
the NATO drawdown as ensuring future instability in the region caused by militantinspired activity emanating from Afghanistan.47
Astana also issued a comprehensive insight into possible threats to national security
in January 2012; the Law on National Security, replacing the earlier version in 1998,
makes no mention of Afghanistan whatsoever. These official views of the potential
threat to national security or regional stability emerging in 2014 also reflect expert
opinions in Astana and Almaty that the transition period in Afghanistan is unlikely
to impact on these countries’ security or pose any significant risk to the region.48
Finally, the contrast in how Afghanistan is perceived at official security levels in
Central Asia could not be more marked than in contrasting the views of other Central
Asian states with Uzbekistan. None of the country’s security documents, including
its defence doctrine, have been published. Uzbekistan is the only state in the region
not to have done so; the military doctrines of, for example, all its Central Asian
neighbors, including neutral Turkmenistan, are openly available to public scrutiny.49
Tashkent’s’ ‘radio silence’ on issues of security at this level means that the analysis of
its possible position on Afghanistan must rely on sifting public statements or delving
into the sparse literature published by its leading experts.50 This results in Western
policy-makers to some extent having to guess how Tashkent perceives 2014, or what
it may be doing to prepare for the drawdown of US and NATO forces.
17

18.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
Conclusion
Policy planners must appreciate the diversity of views in Central Asia on
Afghanistan post-2014, and this reflects at root the limited capacity of these
states to produce independent threat assessments. In turn, national intelligence
agencies in Central Asia are not necessarily as ‘threat-focused’ as many observers
assume. Into this restricted picture of the threat environment, and particularly
how it might change in response to external stimuli, are the purported threat
assessments of other actors, especially Russia, which may not share its actual
assessment of security threats in the region for its own political advantage. Moscow
may seek to exaggerate the possible consequences of the NATO withdrawal from
Afghanistan to foster a perceived need for greater reliance on Russia among
Central Asian governments.51
The official statements and security documents of these states confirm a picture of
confusion, or at least of differences of perspective, on the extent to which the threat
environment may change in Central Asia after 2014. Some states consider it will make
little difference, while others attach much greater emphasis upon this threat factor.
In this context, there is little practical potential for encouraging regional initiatives
to enhance security.52
The two leading Central Asian security actors, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, see
their neighbours, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as possessing no credible options
to enhance or provide for their security, thus rendering these states dependent
on other actors. Yet, in Astana and Tashkent, while these capitals also differ
in their interpretations of Afghanistan post-2014, there are also varied shades
of self-reliance. This militates against pursuing genuine cooperative security
arrangements, though there are likely to be intelligence-sharing mechanisms
that function in detecting and possibly disrupting any future upsurge in terrorist
activity.53
Equally, both Astana and Tashkent are aware of the potential for other powers such
as Russia to use the NATO drawdown from Afghanistan to accentuate the threat
perception in order to bolster Russia’s security role in this strategically important
region. Kazakhstan’s security elite is more anxious about socio-political instability in
a neighbouring state. In its 2011 Military Doctrine, this possible threat to national
security is placed well above any feasible reference to Afghanistan and most likely
relates to Kyrgyzstan and memories of the 2010 revolution and the 2010 ethnic
violence in southern Kyrgyzstan.54
18

19.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
Despite being coy about its national security documents, statements by Uzbekistan’s
senior officials and political leadership seem to place Afghanistan post-2014 at the
top of the country’s national security agenda, though this serves to make Tashkent
pursue yet greater independence in its security policy. These differences in the security
policies of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and how they are likely either to inhibit
or to facilitate measures strengthening regional security are issues explored in the
following chapters.
19

20.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
3. Astana: Strengthening Multilateral Security Options
Kazakhstan has developed close defence and security cooperation with the United
States and NATO since 9/11 and more recently has supported the logistical and
maintenance requirements of the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) in
Afghanistan by playing an active role in the Northern Distribution Network (NDN).55
NATO members seeking to use the NDN for reverse transit as part of the drawdown
from Afghanistan by 2014, that is, using this Ground Line of Communication
(GLOC) to withdraw military hardware overland through Central Asia and Russia,
succeeded in securing Kazakhstan’s agreement in early 2012; it was the first country
in Central Asia to do so. Since then, in January 2013, Paris has signed an agreement
with Astana to open a new NDN spur to fly its hardware from Kabul to Shymkent
and then transport it onward through Kazakhstan and Russia to the Baltic Sea ports
as part of France’s withdrawal of forces from the theatre of operations.56
Clearly, Kazakhstan has played an important role in strengthening NATO GLOCs
prior to the exit from Afghanistan, and like other Central Asian partners it is
actively cooperating in providing the best and most cost-effective options for the
overland withdrawal of military hardware by NATO members. Astana has arguably
developed the closest ties with NATO in the region, participating in Partnership for
Peace (PfP) programmes on a level that goes way beyond other countries in Central
Asia.57 Kazakhstan utilized defence cooperation with NATO and individual NATO
members to develop and strengthen its peacekeeping capabilities, initially by creating
and staffing its peacekeeping battalion (KAZBAT) and seeking assistance to use this
as a basis to enhance it as a peacekeeping brigade (KAZBRIG).58
Linked to the security threat from Afghanistan in so far as an international terrorist
threat was present, it has also sought to enter and develop bilateral security assistance
ties with NATO members aimed to assist in force development, modernization, and
strengthening its antiterrorist capabilities.59
This chapter examines the extent to which Astana views the NATO drawdown from
Afghanistan as changing the regional threat environment and consequently serving as
a justification for additional changes to its defence and security policies. Is Kazakhstan
anxious over the NATO exit from Afghanistan and expect a worsening of its national
security as a result? Will such factors influence defence and security plans, or render
Kazakhstan more open to deepening its defence and security ties either with the
20

21.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
Alliance or individual member states? Could Astana, like Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan, try to extract agreements from NATO militaries on the handover
of some of the hardware assets in Afghanistan in order to boost its own security?
From the perspective of policy-makers in Astana, could there be scope to enhance
existing security cooperation with Western partner states in order to strengthen the
country’s military and security capabilities? Or might more subtle mechanisms be
used to bind Kazakhstan more closely to a Euro-Atlantic approach to security? These
issues are explored here and lead to the rather surprising conclusion that Astana does
not regard the NATO exit from Afghanistan in 2014 as heralding a decline in the
country’s security environment.
Consequently, Western policy-makers should not expect Kazakhstan to shift its
defence and security policies post-2014, or to act like a Central Asian state keen
to seek and accept defence and security assistance wherever it is to be found.60
Moreover, Kazakhstan’s cool reception of the type of scaremongering that can
pass for analysis elsewhere is diametrically opposed to regarding the post-2014
security environment as offering grounds for genuine anxiety; unlike in the other
Central Asian capitals, Astana does not place Afghanistan at the forefront of its
security agenda.61
These factors will also be considered in terms of how the country is furthering its
security interests through multilateral organizations such as the Collective Security
Treaty Organization (CSTO) or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and
the extent to which its policy priorities in either relate to Afghanistan post-2014.62
Kazakhstan’s defence and security policy
Consistent with the 2011 Military Doctrine, the classified National Security Strategy
and the 2012 Law on National Security, Astana has prioritized developing its armed
forces and security structures so as to respond to low- and medium-intensity conflicts.63
This involves improving military command and control (C2), communications systems
and information support for troops during combat operations, and in terms of force
structure the emphasis is on building professional and mobile forces. Defence ministry
units will be tasked with playing a supporting role with border troops, interior troops,
or participating in peace support operations or antiterrorist operations alongside allied
forces. Kazakhstan’s armed forces will gradually transition from line tactics towards
precision operations, develop independent force groupings, enhance the efficacy of
21

22.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
C2 to include the use of automated systems, and introduce modern equipment and
weapons systems.64
Yet, the threat assessment and plans to develop the armed forces further lends little
credibility to the thesis that Astana is calibrating contingency planning into its
defence and security policy linked to Afghanistan post-2014. There is no evidence
that Astana takes seriously the prospect of Taliban or Taliban-inspired militants
launching incursions into Central Asian territory. Specialists involved in working
on the country’s security documents in fact do not consider the Taliban to be a
pressing threat to the country or the region; they regard the Taliban as primarily an
Afghanistan-centric threat.65
Colonel (retired) Georgiy Dubovtsev was involved in the process of drafting these
security documents and has extensive experience in the creation of Kazakhstan’s
security documents over the past twenty years. In a commentary on the 2011 Military
Doctrine, Dubovtsev noted:
The greatest threat to Kazakhstan’s security and regional stability over the
mid-term are an unstable domestic, economic and social climate; growth of
ethnic and demographic tension in some neighboring countries, which could
push much of the population toward extremist fighting methods; transnational
terrorism and religious extremism; organized crime; arms and drug trafficking;
shortage of natural resources, especially water; and deterioration of the
environment.66
Dubovtsev’s outline of the sources of threat to national security places a number of
factors above anything remotely linked to Afghanistan. Despite the recognition of
the transnational threats emanating from Afghanistan, there is nothing to indicate
anticipation that these threats might worsen post-2014, and no specific reference to
Afghanistan-linked militant activity. It is important to note that Dubovtsev’s article
was written one year after the 2011 Military Doctrine was signed into law, and that
the experience of domestic terrorist attacks in the interim had not encouraged a
reassessment of the Afghanistan factor in Kazakhstan’s national security.67
In this context, it is interesting to note that no major change to force structures in
Kazakhstan’s armed forces has occurred since the announcement of the NATO
drawdown from Afghanistan. Moreover, in terms of the training and military exercises
held by the country’s armed forces, there is no commensurate effort to enhance either
22

23.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
counter-insurgency or antiterrorist capabilities which would be consistent with such
a detectable shift in the security environment; in other words, Kazakhstan’s General
Staff is not drawing up any training programmes or contingency planning to confront
Taliban or Taliban-inspired militants.68
Distinct perspectives in Astana on post-2014 security
Kazakhstan’s security documents therefore contain little to suggest that a high priority
is being attached to Afghanistan either as a potential threat to national security or
as a reason to modify the country’s existing security policy in light of the NATO
drawdown from Afghanistan. This lack of priority in the country’s threat assessment
related to Afghanistan also reflects its geographical distance from the potential source
of threat, unlike its neighbours in Central Asia, which allows a more sober or perhaps
realistic evaluation of the possibility of any ‘bleed out’ from the post-conflict zone
negatively impacting on Astana.69
Astana simply does not see Afghanistan as a direct security threat to Kazakhstan. The
country’s security structures see no demonstrable link between the Taliban and the
instances of domestic terrorism or political violence in Kazakhstan since 2011, nor
do they anticipate any upsurge in militant activity in the country as a result of the
NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan.70 Moreover, the ongoing modernization of the
country’s armed forces and efforts to boost the fledgling domestic defence industry
has no connection to considerations regarding post-2014 Afghanistan.
Experts recognize that there will be some level of change as a result of the NATO
withdrawal from Afghanistan, but even among those suggesting there may be a
worsening of the regional security environment, there is no explanation as to why
the Taliban might be motivated to attack Central Asia. In this hypothesis such
experts consider that Afghanistan will fall into chaos after 2014 and consequently
that the ‘southern border’ of Central Asia will present a constant flow of regional
security threats. These threats, far from extending to include militant incursions
or an upsurge in terrorism in Central Asia, relate to the appearance of greater
numbers of illegal immigrants or refugees in the region. Among these specialists,
positive developments linked to Afghanistan post-2014 are also mooted, for
example, the way in which countries such as Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have
constructed more proactive bilateral relations with the country in recent years,
and this is seen as a mechanism through which any escalation in tensions may
be avoided in the future.71
23

24.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
Kazakhstan’s security experts generally expect little to change after 2014 and do not
share the levels of anxiety in neighbouring countries that NATO or its leading member
states will abandon Afghanistan. Indeed, a more sober assessment of the completion
of the NATO drawdown in 2014 is consistent with Western policy statements on the
issue, namely that, rather than marking an end, it denotes a change of strategy and
will initiate a protracted period of transition. Kazakhstan’s security specialists point
to issues such as the US strategic partnership with Afghanistan, as well as the Obama
Administration’s plans to conduct talks with Kabul on a Status of Forces (SOF)
agreement in 2013, which is considered as presaging long-term US military basing
in the country. Until a US-Afghanistan SOF agreement is in place, any US military
access to Central Asian supporting military infrastructure cannot be determined.72
Kazakhstan’s leading security specialists, including those with established expertise
on Afghanistan, show broad familiarity with the work and ideas of their Western
counterparts, and similarly have a realistic and frequently ideologically free approach
to assessing these issues.73 Such specialists see the fragmented and divided tribal system
in Afghanistan, the weakness of the Karzai central government, and the vast waste and
inefficiency involved in Western donor aid programmes linked to the disparate and
evolving Taliban structure and presence of al Qaeda-linked groups as providing a set
of complex security dynamics inhibiting the long-term stabilization of the country.74
Moreover, the possibility that Central Asian security may deteriorate as a result of the
2014 NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan is not serving as a driver of Kazakhstan’s
defence and security policy. This can be adequately established both by careful
reference to the 2011 Military Doctrine and the 2012 Law on National Security;
neither provide convincing evidence that Astana is bracing itself for a security crisis
post-2014.75
In order to consider these issues further and understand how Astana calibrates these
factors into its defence and security policy-making, it is important to explore the views
of its experts and contrast them with the state structures involved in formulating such
policy. A fundamental point must be grasped by Western policy-makers grappling
with how Astana sees 2014, and that is to stress that the views of the country’s leading
security experts do not always reflect state policy; this is because the state structures
pay scant regard to domestic expertise in the decision-making process.76
What can be deduced from the work or expressions of opinion among the country’s
foremost international relations or security specialists and experts on Afghanistan
24

25.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
represents at best some traces of government thinking. However, these specialists are
frequently well versed in the publications of Western, Russian or domestic experts
on Afghanistan and its impact on Central Asian security.77
A tiny minority of international relations and security experts in Kazakhstan are
actively involved in influencing the governmental decision-making process, but this
level of influence should not be overestimated. For the purposes of this analysis,
therefore, it should be noted that both these experts and the civil service and
intelligence machinery feeding government may be wrong, or underestimate the
potential threat, or the unpredictability involved in assessing how such a threat may
develop or metastasize over time.78
Despite these caveats, Astana possesses its own distinct perspectives on Afghanistan
post-2014 and its implications for regional security, and shows no sign of pursuing
any major policy revisions as a result. Therefore, it is likely to cooperate in a limited
way at the multilateral level, or to offer bilateral initiatives to strengthen security in
the region or promote enhanced stability in Afghanistan, although the latter will be
restricted to humanitarian or economic assistance.79
Scenarios for Afghanistan post-2014
Kazakhstan’s leading specialists on Afghanistan interpret 2014 as a symbolic date
and question whether a ‘real’ withdrawal of forces will occur in the sense of leaving
behind no long-term military footprint. These experts highlight the ongoing
rebuilding of military infrastructure in Bagram, Shindan and Kandagar, suggesting
a comparison with the ‘drawdown’ in Iraq, which left behind 60,000 US troops and
numerous private security companies. Moreover, in this interpretation the leading
Western actors are seen as having long-term interests in Afghanistan, especially as
the entire region may be considered strategically important and potentially volatile
for China and Russia too. Afghanistan, like the South Caucasus, is increasingly seen
in Western capitals as part of a wider policy related to transport corridors. In the
event that Afghanistan and Central Asia destabilize, this may spill over into Europe.
A possible war against Iran is an additional factor complicating any assessment of
the long-term security environment in Central Asia post-2014, since this can also
dramatically influence the situation surrounding Afghanistan and Central Asia.80
According to Kazakhstani security specialists, one of the biggest internal political
problems in Afghanistan stems from the fact that the Pashtuns are not properly
25

26.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
represented, while Tajiks enjoy support from Russia and Iran. In the view of such
experts, the West has to understand that the Taliban is not some kind of global
terrorist organisation, but a group of militia from Pashtun tribes, mostly two main
tribes the Gilza and Dzadran. The fact that Pashtuns are not included in the political
process or involved in forming the ANA and national police serves as a constant
factor for clashes and instability.81
An article published in early 2011 by Eldar Gabdullin, an expert in the Almaty-based
Centre for Contemporary Policy, considered various scenarios for the development
of Central Asia to 2030. Gabdullin’s list of factors influencing the development
scenarios for the period to 2015 again reveals the low priority linked to Afghanistan:
1. The state of the economy throughout the entire region in the context of the global
situation;
2. The level of consensus or antagonism among the external geopolitical forces;
3. The political situation in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and possible changes in the
political elites in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan;
4. The influence of the situation in Afghanistan;
5. The likelihood of the US carrying out any new military operations against Iran;
6. The degree of involvement of the new regional forces (India, Iran, and Turkey)
in the Central Asian processes.82
At very best, therefore, such expert analyses characterize Afghanistan as a fairly
predictable threat, mainly in the area of well-known transnational threats such as
drug trafficking, but they do not over-stress this as an impending and serious security
threat to Kazakhstan. This focus on socio-economic, domestic or Central Asian
sources of instability is also reflected in the country’s recent security documents,
suggesting that the state structures are certainly not attaching increased attention to
Afghanistan post-2014.83
Similarly, a sixteen-page article published by Kazakhstan’s Centre for Social and
Political Studies offers no encouragement to those who may seek to exaggerate the
potential impact of 2014 on the country’s defense and security policy. In the ‘Threat
Analysis of National Security in the Medium Term,’ Afghanistan is mentioned only
three times. Each of these references is to already well-established threats emanating
from the country and its continued instability. The article offers no credence to the
idea that Kazakhstan’s expert community expects a decline in Central Asian security
to follow the NATO exit from Afghanistan.84
26

27.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
The document also notes that, according to UN experts, more than ‘twenty percent’
of opiates produced in Afghanistan transit through Kazakhstan’s borders to the world
market. Kazakhstan has thus emerged as part of the drug-trafficking route from
Afghanistan to Europe. There is no analysis or forecast regarding whether this might
grow further after 2014 or of any connection being made to the NATO withdrawal.85
Afghanistan is mentioned in the analysis of international terrorism, but only in the
more narrow focus of efforts by terrorist groups to influence or hasten the withdrawal
of ISAF members from Afghanistan. Finally, Afghanistan is named as one of the
wider sources of instability in Central Asia due to conflicts involving the great powers,
and here there is also an acknowledgement of the risks stemming from a possible
conflict between the US and Iran.86 Seen from this perspective, Afghanistan’s possibly
negative impact on Central Asian security post-2014 is only one among a number
of hypothetical risks.
The prospect of a serious crisis in the country or within Central Asia resulting from
the aftermath of the NATO drawdown in 2014 is not taken seriously by Kazakhstan’s
international relations and security experts, nor does it feature in official security
policy. Experts also question what might motivate the Taliban to target Kazakhstan
specifically, or even to aspire to influence regional dynamics beyond its traditional
focus on Afghanistan. Indeed, any expectation that major policy change is required
as a result of the implications of 2014 is further undermined by reference to the
‘bleed out’ theory. Some Western experts link the emergence of militant activities
and terrorist bombings in Kazakhstan since 2011 to the prospect of a worsening
of the security situation caused by Kazakhstani nationals who have allegedly been
fighting alongside the Taliban returning to the country post-2014 with the intention
of causing domestic political instability.87
This post-2014 scenario is not considered a serious threat to national security either
by the state structures or by most security specialists in Kazakhstan. Although the
number of such Kazakhstani citizens with experience of fighting alongside the Taliban
in Afghanistan is unknown, it is not seen as significant. From this small group, even if
a residue decide to return to Kazakhstan with the aim of carrying out terrorist attacks
or fuelling Islamic militancy, there are already structures in place to deal with it: the
National Security Committee (KNB), or KNB Special Forces and the KNB Border
Service, as well as other agencies, would be at the forefront of detecting and combating
this.88 There are few concrete grounds to suggest that this might stimulate any major
change to defence or security policy on the part of Kazakhstan’s government. Based
27

28.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
upon this assessment, there is no reason to drive the country’s leadership to consider
or implement systemic defence and security sector reform to boost defences against
a threat that at best is seen as purely hypothetical.
To be clear, Astana does not anticipate a deterioration of security in the country
or in the region itself as a result of the NATO drawdown in Afghanistan. Any
scenario modelling that may occur within the state structures therefore excludes the
prospect that a doomsday event may take place such as the far-fetched incursion of
the Afghanistan-based Taliban, or even a hypothetical ‘mass’ exodus of Kazakhstani
pro-Taliban militants arriving in the country to cause destabilization. On the contrary,
its experts anticipate either no change, or only a relatively moderate impact at worst
to the security environment stemming from post-2014 Afghanistan.89
Balancing multilateral options: the CSTO, SCO and NATO
In the post-2014 security environment, Kazakhstan will continue to pursue a balanced
or ‘multi-vector’ foreign policy aimed at avoiding preferring any one partner state
above others. However, some experts believe that this policy will come under pressure
after 2014. Although Russia is undoubtedly Kazakhstan’s closest defence and security
ally, many Kazakhstani security experts believe this relationship will become more
unpredictable after the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, though their reasons
are rooted in ‘geopolitics.’90
In this context, Astana considers the implications of Vladimir Putin’s return to the
Kremlin in May 2012 for Russian foreign and security policy in Central Asia to
be unclear. Other Kazakhstani experts believe that there is no real consistency or
overarching strategy in Russian security policy in Central Asia, which may leave scope
for the Kremlin to exert increased pressure upon Central Asian countries at random
and on a case-by-case basis. When Putin came to power in 2000 he altered Russian
foreign policy on Central Asia, and there is also anxiety that he may choose to do so
again, perhaps to strengthen Russia’s role in regional security or to exert pressure on
other actors, or to protect Russian strategic interests from encroachment by others.91
Seen in this light, Moscow may try to use 2014 to exploit the opportunity to boost
its own influence in Central Asia, but this does not imply a real and tangible shift
in the regional threat environment. If the Kremlin does follow such a path, it would
stress the need for Central Asian countries to cooperate more closely with Russia on
security policy following the NATO exit from Afghanistan in order to protect their
28

29.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
own interests and consolidate regional elites.92 This ‘geopolitical’ interpretation of
the likely course of Russian foreign and security policy in Central Asia post-2014
appears to be supported by Moscow’s efforts to extend its military basing leases in
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which were successfully negotiated in the autumn of 2012.
The Russian leadership is also considered to be unhappy with the lack of support from
its Central Asian allies within the CSTO following the Five Day War with Georgia
in August 2008 and the Kremlin’s unilateral recognition of the independence of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia; none of the Central Asian CSTO members followed
Russia in recognizing these ‘independent states.’ Referring to this strain in relations with
Russia, Kazakhstani experts also note that Moscow is concerned about Kazakhstan’s
continued level of cooperation with NATO, and these factors combined suggest there
could be grounds for Moscow to become more assertive in its foreign, defence and
security policies in Central Asia.93
One possible way of avoiding this potentially longer term negative development
in the impact of geopolitics on the region, or offsetting the impact of the Kremlin
reasserting its regional security role, would be to advocate closer cooperation in
Central Asia between the US and Russia. Part of the policy problem in this regard
is the lack of an obvious mechanism to do so and the sensitivity in the region about
national sovereignty.94 However, experts in Kazakhstan see little realistic prospect
for deep and systemic US–Russian security cooperation within the region. Although
Moscow and Washington may have common goals in Central Asia, the problem
remains one of coordination, with little appetite in either capital for overcoming the
policy issues inhibiting genuine security cooperation between these powers in such
a strategically important region.95
This also extends into multilateral frameworks involving the United States and
Russia, especially NATO and the CSTO, where political factors limit the scope for
strengthening security cooperation.96 Some Alliance members object on political
grounds to any official cooperation occurring between NATO and the CSTO, as
it is considered as a mechanism to boost Russia’s role in the region, while the level
of each organization and internal divisions on such policy issues are not likely to be
resolved anytime soon.
Kazakhstani security specialists believe that, although there are no serious policy
differences in terms of promoting regional security, Washington and Moscow are
likely to pursue only very limited cooperative arrangements in Central Asia. In the
29

30.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
meantime, Astana is staking a great deal on the further transformation of the CSTO,
a process in which it has been actively involved since 2008. Nevertheless, the efforts
to improve the level of security cooperation and options for the CSTO taking real
action during a crisis are not driven by factors linked to Afghanistan.97
Astana views the CSTO as an essential multilateral security organization that may
respond to the evolving sources of potential instability surrounding the CSTO.
Similar to Moscow and Minsk, policy-makers in Astana have become convinced in
recent years that the CSTO must be transformed beyond a merely collective security
organization, prepared to act against external threats, and adopt new powers to act
across a wider remit of potential security crises. Although the CSTO was already
implementing radical change to its structures and potential areas of action in a
future security crisis, the violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 served as an
additional stimulus in this process of organizational transformation. Indeed, changes
to the organization since then have tried to reconcile the existence of 20,000-strong
multilateral rapid reaction forces with the security environment; this has resulted in
its members agreeing to widen the scope for using this force to include domestic or
environmental crises.98
The CSTO is in transformation, and is arguably undergoing an internal crisis of
its own following the de facto withdrawal of Uzbekistan from the organization,
raising many questions over its potential to act during a regional security crisis.
However, this process is not driven by the situation in Afghanistan but stems
from widespread agreement among the CSTO members that they should enhance
their military capabilities, meet modern and emerging threats and challenges, and
improve the organization’s legal framework to facilitate action in response to a
future security crisis that overstretches the capabilities of any individual member
state and thus requires multilateral operations. As part of this process the CSTO
will also attempt to strengthen information security among its members, and some
have even pushed for multilateral support if a member state is confronted by an
‘Arab Spring’ scenario.99
The CSTO’s Collective Rapid Reaction Forces (Кollektivnyye Sily Operativnogo
Reagirovaniya or KSOR) must also not be viewed as a primarily Afghanistanlinked contingency force. The creation of KSOR occurred long before the Obama
Administration announced its intention to end combat operations in Afghanistan.
The force structure is not modelled on counter-insurgency operations, and in theory
it can be used in numerous ways.100 However, the scenarios deployed in the annual
30

31.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
military exercises since 2009 in which KSOR has been trained do not present
conclusive evidence of a greater emphasis upon counter-insurgency.
CSTO officials and Russian politicians advocate a greater role for the organization in
ensuring Central Asian security post-2014. However, beyond the political rhetoric
involved, there is no real correlation between the existence of KSOR and the distant
and hypothetical risk of a militant incursion into Central Asia orchestrated from
Afghanistan. In order for the host nation in the CSTO to request assistance from the
organization during a security crisis, it would need to reach a scale that overstretches
its own defence and security forces.101 This scenario may gain some traction in the
smaller Central Asian states where the militaries, security structures and intelligence
agencies are weakest, namely Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but simply does not hold in the
case of either Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. The latter countries are certainly capable of
dealing with such a low-intensity threat without recourse to a multilateral framework.
In such scenarios Tashkent is highly unlikely to become involved in any direct capacity;
in any case its ‘power projection’ capabilities remain very limited. This would leave
a situation in which the CSTO is triggered to act in the region in response to an
Afghanistan-linked security threat stemming from an incursion into Tajikistan or
Kyrgyzstan as the only hypothetical cases. Within the CSTO Security Council,
agreement between Kazakhstan and Russia would be an essential prerequisite for
any action, but the process is likely to be complex and may not result in a speedy
response.102 But in order to deploy a sizeable force grouping using the KSOR to deescalate or contain the security crisis, the sheer scale of the initial incursion would
already take the scenario into the implausible.
Moreover, careful examination of the KSOR military exercises since 2009 reveals that
the approach adopted by the commanders resembles much more clearly a combinedarms operation against a conventionally armed adversary.103 Consequently, for the
scenario to be played out and for the KSOR to be at its most effective, the ‘Taliban’
or ‘Taliban-inspired’ incursion would have to include conventional force elements
presumably acquired through collusion with the Afghan National Army (ANA).
Anything on a smaller scale or more realistic could be dealt with by supporting hostnation forces in a joint operation conducted at a bilateral level.
Nevertheless, one of the fundamental weaknesses in the CSTO is that the scenario
planning for military exercises involving the new rapid reaction forces relies heavily
on Russian planning and Russian threat assessment. Moreover, in Astana’s view, if
31

32.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
hypothetically a ‘bleed out’ from Afghanistan resulted in a security crisis within
Kazakhstan, it is unlikely that any multilateral force response would be required.
Astana attaches high priority to the CSTO in its defence and security policy, but this
is certainly not rooted in an assessment connecting it to Afghanistan or a possible
deterioration in domestic security after 2014.104
Equally, Kazakhstan has proved to be an active participant in the security dimension
of the SCO. However, its leading experts consider the role of the SCO in relation
to Afghanistan to be more restricted to economic issues.105 Astana sees no realistic
prospect for the SCO ‘intervening’ or taking concrete action in the unlikely event of
a regional security crisis stemming from Afghanistan-related scenarios.106
This is based upon recognition of the fundamental conundrum at the heart of
the SCO: Moscow and Beijing have different visions for its future development.
Moscow would like to see the SCO emerge as a security organization, whereas
Beijing wants to limit its development mainly to the economic sphere. In a
security crisis, achieving consensus to act between Moscow and Beijing, let alone
defining the strategic aims of such operations, is highly unlikely. Therefore, among
security experts in Kazakhstan, if not within the corridors of power itself, the
question is raised as to what exactly the SCO could do during a Central Asian
security crisis.107
Moreover, some experts in Kazakhstan regard the potential role of the SCO post2014 as restricted to mediation or humanitarian assistance. Its scope to contribute
positively if a security crisis were to occur remains rather limited.108 These security
specialists believe that the main source of conflict in Central Asia is rooted in poor
socio-economic conditions and that the SCO could do more to contribute to economic
development and resolve water issues, among other concerns, or to act as a forum in
which to discuss the region’s most urgent security challenges.109
Conclusion
Kazakhstan is not preparing contingency plans for a marked deterioration in regional
security as a result of the NATO drawdown in Afghanistan, simply because there is
no perceived real need to do so, as Astana sees it. Neither its expert community nor
the state security structures expect the post-2014 security environment to differ so
significantly that adjustments would be required to defence and security policy.110
The search for signs of increased activity in the country’s defence or security forces,
32

33.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
or policy initiatives aimed at boosting security in response to this hypothetical threat
is therefore largely redundant.
Despite Kazakhstan’s participation in NATO’s PfP, its advances in defence capabilities
and force structure through actively cooperating with NATO members in various
bilateral defence and security assistance programmes, and its commitment to supporting
the NDN, Astana never regarded Afghanistan as ‘its war.’ The country’s leadership
resisted several years of pressure from London and Washington to send peacekeepers
to Afghanistan ,and after a political commitment by President Nursultan Nazarbayev
to send a small number of officers to ISAF HQ in Kabul, the process became trapped
in Kazakhstan’s Senate in May 2011.111
Some foreign observers have suggested that this might have been stimulated by the
Taliban reportedly threatening to target Kazakhstan should it send its peacekeepers
to Afghanistan, but this is way off the mark. There was never any great enthusiasm
in Astana to send members of KAZBAT/KAZBRIG to Afghanistan, and it was
only supported by the country’s General Staff as a means to deepen their experience
of international peace support operations. It was never successfully implemented
precisely due to the feeling among the country’s security experts, and shared by the
security elite, that Afghanistan was not their war.112
This sense of geographical distance from the conflict and recognition that it was not a
conflict that the country wished to become a party to influences security thinking on
the level of cooperation on offer to the Alliance. Astana is willing actively to support
the withdrawal process by agreeing to allow the NDN reverse transit to bring heavy
organic military equipment out of Afghanistan and transit through its territory en
route to its point of origin. However, it has not requested any direct benefits from
the NATO drawdown such as the equipment transfers sought by its neighbours.113
Kazakhstan’s security documents, and in particular its 2011 Military Doctrine,
indicate that the country’s security elite does not anticipate a major shift in the
security environment post-2014.114 The country’s armed forces and security forces
show no sign of additional reform or shifts in posture in response to the drawdown
from Afghanistan, and military exercises likewise do not reveal any increased interest
in rehearsing counter-insurgency or counter-terrorist operations. The single most
important policy implication for Western planning staffs, therefore, is to note the
sharp divide between perspectives in Astana on the 2014 drawdown contrasted with
views elsewhere in the region, especially in Tashkent.
33

34.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
4. Tashkent: Pursuing the ‘Uzbek Way’ on Security
All the potential multilateral security options to strengthen Central Asian security
in the context of 2014 and NATO’s end to combat operations in Afghanistan face
a reality check and are often completely contradicted by the leading strategic actor
in the region: Uzbekistan. Yet, the perspectives in Tashkent on the drawdown from
Afghanistan, the possible developments in that state post-2014 and its implications
for security in Central Asia are precisely those least understood in Western capitals.
Uzbekistan’s role in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and its
perspectives on the security activities of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) are equally unfathomable for Western policy-makers.115
These issues are examined here from Tashkent’s perspective in an effort to address
some of the common misperceptions about Uzbekistan’s security policies. The key
assertion is that these policies and widespread scepticism of the potential or present
course of development in the CSTO or the SCO reflect deep systemic analysis among
Uzbekistan’s expert community, as well as constant monitoring of the security situation
in Afghanistan and Central Asia by its government agencies. Tashkent adopts a more
independent stance on foreign and security policy issues than its neighbours, and its
proximity to Afghanistan will always make the country a key player in assisting even
indirectly in long-term regional stability efforts.
CSTO Transformation: ‘Rapid Reaction’ and ‘Mission Creep’
The extent to which Tashkent sees multilateral security mechanisms as plausible or
even preferred ways to bolster security in the region post-2014, or indeed actually
chooses to pursue alternatives, can be seen with reference its attitude to the CSTO.
As Tashkent prepares for 2014, there are no indications that it considers the CSTO
as even remotely contributing to its security or boosting regional security. This has
its origins in the nature of Tashkent’s complex relations with its CSTO partners
and objections to the organization’s transformation, as well as its assessment of the
potential role the body might play in any Afghanistan-linked security crisis within
Central Asia.116
Changes to the threat environment in Central Asia, Moscow’s security concerns
over the US military presence and influence within the region, and the widespread
recognition that Afghanistan will continue to be a potential source of regional
34

35.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
instability, especially if the Taliban prove to be successful in their insurgency efforts at
the expense of NATO forces, all served as a set disparate factors which set in motion
significant changes to the CSTO.117 The nature of these changes, its aims and origins
are critical factors in establishing the level of growing discontentment in Tashkent
concerning both the CSTO transition and its possible role in strengthening Central
Asian security in relation to Afghanistan-linked threats.
Viewed from each capital of the CSTO members, these changes and the organizational
transformation could appear to serve national interests, or be left open to varied
interpretation, but one country has consistently opposed the entire process: Uzbekistan.
Not all of the CSTO members (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) regarded the developmental priorities for the organization
in the same way, and indeed two countries stood out as the main drivers in conducting
a de facto reform of the body, namely Kazakhstan and Russia. Astana and Moscow
therefore placed themselves at the forefront of efforts to transform the CSTO, and
this began with discussion on the possible creation of a new force structure. Arguably
Minsk also later became a driver in this process, but its interests revolved around
persuading the CSTO to act in domestic crises with host government consent.
Nonetheless, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were assigned the role of policytakers rather than policy-makers within the CSTO.118
In 2007-2008 Moscow and Astana explored ways in which the existing CSTO
structures might be enhanced, particularly in the areas of peacekeeping and rapid
reaction forces. Since 2007 the CSTO suggested participating in peacekeeping
operations under UN auspices internationally or non-UN mandated operations within
its member states, and it finally staged its first peacekeeping exercise in Kazakhstan in
October 2012, called ‘Enduring Brotherhood.’119 Since 2002, the CSTO has possessed
a limited ‘rapid reaction’ capability centred upon the Collective Rapid Deployment
Forces (Кollektivnyye Sily Bistrogo Razvertyvaniya or KSBR), a force numbering no
more than 4,500 and tasked with a counter-terrorist responsibility.120
Uzbekistan had been sceptical about the KSBR, and despite the annual military
exercises which served to ‘test’ or more accurately ‘showcase’ the CSTO’s counterterrorist capabilities through the KSBR, few regarded it as a credible force. The
exercises were frequently criticised for more closely resembling a combined-arms
exercise with little to link it in real terms to counter-terrorism. Indeed, the main
criticism made against the CSTO generally, even by Russian specialists, was that
it was basically a ‘paper’ organization, and the KSBR and even the CSTO airbase
35

36.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
in Kant, which is in reality a Russian Air Force facility in Kyrgyzstan, or the 201st
Russian Military Base, with its headquarters in Dushanbe, never really broke free
from the ‘paper’ force interpretation.121
The fruits of Russian and Kazakhstani discussions in 2007-2008 emerged around the
recognition that the CSTO was in essence a collective security body designed only to
counter external threats. It had a collective defence article similar to NATO’s Article
5, compelling other members to act if one member is attacked, but that aggression
had to be external in its origins. Adapting this to fit a much broader range of potential
threats or military operations meant changing the whole nature of the organization,
but to carry out such a deep transformation, there needed to be certain structures
put in place in order to justify reforming the legal basis of the CSTO and increase
its scope for action.122
This resulted in an informal CSTO summit held in Borovoye, Kazakhstan, in December
2008 to discuss the idea of creating a new force structure in the form of a greatly
expanded rapid reaction force. The idea was first aired by Astana, but following the
Russia–Georgia conflict in August 2008 Moscow had given the idea fresh impetus.
The first sign of trouble ahead within the CSTO over this issue was signalled by the
absence of any representation at the informal summit from Uzbekistan; few paid
attention either to the Borovoye meeting or Tashkent’s absence.123
The focal point of Borovoye 2008 was therefore to air the issue of and garner support
for the formation of a new force structure in the CSTO, with some early reference
to a broader range of security crises in which it might be activated, though these
details needed further refinement. What emerged in its aftermath was only a tentative
agreement, and not among all CSTO members, to create the Collective Rapid Reaction
Forces (Кollektivnyye Sily Operativnogo Reagirovaniya or KSOR). The new force
would be up to 20,000 strong and tasked with operational use in counter-terrorism
and other security crises that might erupt on the territories of member states.124
KSOR was formally created six months later during the Moscow CSTO summit
in June 2009. It did not replace, nor was it intended to replace, the existing KSBR;
both were exercised simultaneously in September 2011. Only five members of the
CSTO signed the initial KSOR agreement, with Belarus and Uzbekistan withholding
consent. Bilateral ties were strained at the time between Moscow and Minsk, which
may have contributed to the delay in Belarusian approval, combined with domestic
legislation which prohibited it from deploying its military forces abroad.125 It soon
36

37.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
transpired that Tashkent opposed the KSOR on principle, and these specific areas of
concern relate to force composition, its expanded mandate and the terms on which
it may be authorised to act.
On force composition, Tashkent advocated that all members contribute equally
with an equal say in all operational and training issues. What resulted, however,
was a force structure that mainly consisted of units from Russia and Kazakhstan
placed under Russian command. KSOR is formed mainly from the elite Russian
airborne forces (Vozdushno-Desantnyye Voiska or VDV ) and Kazakhstan’s
airmobile forces. Russia contributes the VDV 98 th Airborne Division (Ivanovo)
and 31 st Air Assault Brigade (AAB) (Ulyanovsk), Kazakhstan its 37th AAB
(Taldykurgon).126 Kazakhstan and Russia provide Special Forces – Kazakhstani
Arystan and Russian Rys and Bars, in addition to combat air support; Kazakhstan
also contributes a marine battalion. Other CSTO members offer smaller
forces (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan each provide one battalion), while
Belarus contributes 2,000 personnel, including its 5 th Spetsnaz Brigade, an
interior ministry Almaz unit, a KGB Alpha antiterrorist unit and an additional
emergencies ministry unit.
In the period 2009-2010, these arguments went unresolved as the transformation
process continued. Tashkent raised its objections with its partners and also bilaterally
with Moscow, opposing the force structure, and arguing that any move to increase
the tasking for the KSOR would push the CSTO beyond its collective security
origins. Eventually, after Minsk finally signed the KSOR agreement on 26 May 2010,
Tashkent appeared more isolated within the CSTO, though it did not back down
on any of its core concerns.127
With Tashkent opposing the KSOR structure, which appeared in its command levels
to be ‘Russia-heavy’ and to have an unequal representation of members within the
KSOR, it continued to object to efforts to broaden the mandate for the new CSTO
force.128 Despite that opposition the other CSTO members agreed to a wider range
of security crises that might trigger the use of KSOR, including a domestic security
crisis in which a member state calls for assistance and natural or man-made disasters;
in short, the CSTO could send the KSOR into action even if the source of the security
threat was internal to the organization or located within the territory of a member
state. Tashkent also opposed any effort to abandon the need for all members to
approve such military action, endeavouring to uphold the CSTO’s original principle
of consensus.129
37

38.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
The extent to which Moscow was pushing these initiatives – albeit with full approval
and support from Astana, which functioned as the key axis in this transformation for
the CSTO – was further compounded in 2009 by Russia’s efforts to open a second
airbase in Kyrgyzstan. Although Moscow dropped this plan following the downfall
of the Bakiyev regime in Bishkek in April 2010, Tashkent was alarmed by the manner
in which Moscow had handled the whole affair.130 At no point during Moscow’s
efforts to open an airbase in southern Kyrgyzstan, close to Uzbekistan’s borders, did
Russian officials inform Tashkent either through the CSTO or bilaterally; at the very
least this seemed to be a breach of diplomatic protocol. The disagreement was also
a CSTO issue, since such changes to basing options in the region should be subject
to consultation and information exchange among members.131
By the Moscow CSTO summit in December 2010 the die was cast, and a number of
amendments to the founding charter made possible the earlier agreement to authorize
the deployment of the KSOR in a much wider set of security crises.132 Moreover, as
part of the CSTO transformation, amendments were signed to abrogate the need for
full consensus to approve military action: in the future the KSOR could be sent into
combat operations after a majority of the CSTO members voted in favour. Other
CSTO members argued that this was needed in order to prevent the organization
becoming dysfunctional by, for instance, one member blocking action during a
security crisis.133
Despite Uzbekistan’s disapproval of these initiatives the KSOR was formed, and the
force staged military exercises in 2009-2010 and again in September 2011 during
the Russian operational-strategic exercise Tsentr 2011. Its mandate for operational
use had been widened, the CSTO principle of consensus had been replaced with a
majority vote being sufficient for it to act, and the CSTO had effectively added to
its original collective security mandate.134
Underlying all Tashkent’s objections in this period was a legal argument that no
other member adequately answered or refuted. Uzbekistan essentially argued that
the organization’s founding charter does not permit any major change within or to
the organization without the consent its members. In this sense, without Tashkent
signing the KSOR agreement, the force is de facto illegal. Equally, changing the
principle for the need for full consent by its members in order to authorize the use
of the new force also contravened this basic legal need for agreement by all CSTO
members. None of the members could initiate any significant changes within the
CSTO that bypassed the need for full consensus.135
38

39.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
All other CSTO members based the need for these fundamental changes on the fact
that, when the organization was ‘tested’ in June 2010, it was legally unable to react to
the crisis in southern Kyrgyzstan. Had the political will existed to send a CSTO force
to Kyrgyzstan, it was still effectively legally impossible to do so because the crisis had
not originated in an act of external aggression against the country.136
At a political level Tashkent fundamentally objected to the CSTO transformation
away from mere collective organization of defence to adding new responsibilities
and capabilities. For Tashkent these were hardly abstract arguments, since the likely
location of KSOR military operations would have been in the Fergana Valley, close to
Uzbekistan’s borders. Bilateral discussions on these areas of disagreement continued
between Tashkent and Moscow until and after June 2012, when Uzbekistan made its
controversial decision to suspend its participation within the CSTO. Uzbek security
specialists emphasize that Moscow is fully aware of Tashkent’s stance on all these issues.137
Suspension of ‘Participation’ in CSTO Activities
Tashkent had therefore already produced and raised a number of concerns about the
trajectory of the CSTO’s transformation. These concerns were the subject of ongoing
closed bilateral discussions with Moscow, and decisions were taken on a case-by-case
basis regarding whether Uzbekistan should participate in official CSTO meetings. This
process culminated in June 2012 in what many came to regard as Tashkent reaching
the controversial decision to exit the CSTO, prompting erroneous speculation that
this might pave the way for the country to host a foreign military base, as well as a
great deal of media attention on the reasons underlying its ‘membership’ suspension.138
To untangle the various interpretations of Tashkent’s actions, its motives, aims and
how this was presented in the Russian media, it is necessary to establish some core
facts. These must be clarified in order to identify the distinction between how the
suspension was presented in the Russian media, which in turn spread into Western
views of this development, and the exact nature of Tashkent’s move to distance itself
from CSTO policy on key issues. The overriding error contained in much of the
reporting, and even in expert commentary, was to overlook the fact that Uzbekistan
had not reached its decision on a whim, but reluctantly took this step after several
years of opposing conceptual changes in the CSTO.139
On 20 June 2012 Tashkent dispatched a diplomatic note to the CSTO secretariat
in Moscow to outline its position on the transformation of the CSTO, including its
39

40.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
reasons for effectively freezing or suspending its participation in the organization.140
At this critical stage, it is important to note a gap of several days before the Russian
media began to report on Tashkent’s actions; during this hiatus it is likely that, although
Moscow had anticipated some sort of demarche from Uzbekistan, additional time was
needed to formulate a public response. Within a few days, consequently, in late June
2012, the Russian media published numerous articles portraying Tashkent as taking
an irrational decision to suspend its membership of the CSTO, and characterized
official policy in Uzbekistan as at best erratic and unpredictable.141
It was also particularly noticeable that officials in other CSTO member states such
as Belarus or Kazakhstan offered a more measured and muted response to Tashkent’s
statement. These officials in Minsk and Astana spoke of requiring time to study the
note and avoiding issuing any prompt response, stressing that this needed discussion
among CSTO members.142
Tashkent’s diplomatic note to the CSTO secretariat suspended the country’s
‘participation’ in the CSTO, not its membership. The distinction is important, and
the position adopted by Tashkent is far from irrational but rooted in conveying
its strongest possible objections to the future direction of the CSTO within the
organization’s legal framework. This legal framework refers to the original Collective
Security Treaty (CST) Charter and subsequent agreements which prohibit a member
country from either suspending its membership or unilaterally withdrawing.143
On the latter point, if a member of the CSTO chooses to withdraw from the
organization it must according to protocol submit this decision to the CSTO at
an official level, providing the organization with six months advanced notice of
its intention to pull out. Finally this would be discussed and accepted by all other
members during a CSTO summit. In June 2012 Uzbekistan did not inform other
CSTO members of any decision to withdraw from the body, and in fact suspended
only its participation, since suspending membership would have been illegal; there
is simply no legal mechanism allowing this option.144
In essence, Tashkent’s decision constitutes a protest action against the direction of the
CSTO, and especially over these initiatives occurring without its approval or consent.
Speaking off the record to Russian media sources, officials in Uzbekistan’s foreign
ministry explained that the diplomatic note focussed on two main justifications for
the decision: attempts to place Afghanistan on the CSTO agenda, and the increasing
militarization of the organization.145
40

41.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
On the first point, Tashkent opposition to the CSTO raising security issues related
to Afghanistan reflects more than its wider concern about the overall direction of
the organization. On principle Uzbekistan objects to two key points: the CSTO
assuming ‘NATO-like’ global functions within the former Soviet space, and the
multilateral approach it has adopted to Afghanistan post-2014. Since Uzbekistan
suspended its participation in the CSTO, Moscow has indeed pushed relentlessly
to portray the organization as preparing for a ‘worst case’ scenario in Afghanistan
post-2014 and positioning itself to act to protect Central Asian security during any
future Afghanistan-linked crisis. These views were expressed publicly by the CSTO
Secretary-General Nikolai Bordyuzha, which prompted some Russian experts to note
his apparently gleeful stance about security in the region inevitably deteriorating and
casting Russia as a regional guarantor of security.146
Tashkent’s second objection concerning the increasing militarization of the CSTO
actually extends well beyond its position on the KSOR. The evidence that, mainly as
a result of Moscow’s security policy, the CSTO is seeking to strengthen its military
dimension and de facto militarize itself stems from changes to the CSTO command
structure. Moscow acting alone, and without consulting its allies during the formulation
period, developed a revised vision for the CSTO military command which would
have united all CSTO forces, including KSBR, KSOR and the peacekeeping forces,
under a single unified command. Moscow sold this concept to its CSTO allies on
the basis of further strengthening the CSTO, as well as streamlining and enhancing
its command and control.147
However, the new structure, earmarked to be led by a Russian general, had some features
that caused anxiety in Tashkent. Quite apart from the favoured candidate in Moscow
being Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov, the commander of the Airborne Forces
(VDV) with a reputation for ruthlessness established during the second Chechnya
conflict, the systemic change to the command structure had significant implications.
These modifications would allow the command to bypass both the Collective Security
Council and the Collective Defence Ministers’ council, implying at least in theory
that its actual subordination to the Kremlin.148
The rapid media campaign in Moscow effectively obscured these issues from public
view and misrepresented Uzbekistan’s position on a range of CSTO issues, while using
the familiar motif in criticizing Tashkent of portraying the regime as unpredictable
and subject to sudden policy reversal. By December 2012, writing in the Financial
Times, even the award-winning Ahmed Rashid referred to Uzbekistan as having
41

42.
DIIS REPORT 2013:12
‘withdrawn’ from the CSTO.149 Tashkent could hardly compete with the power of
Russian dominance of the post-Soviet information space.
This included persistent references to Uzbekistan withdrawing from the CSTO
previously, only to re-join the organization in 2006. Unfortunately, few experts
in Russia or among Western commentators noticed the misrepresentation in
this portrayal of Tashkent’s involvement in the CSTO – it had never in fact
withdrawn from the organization. 150 In 2000 Tashkent declined to renew its
membership of the Collective Security Treaty. By 2002 this body had been
transformed into the CSTO, and in 2006 Tashkent chose to become a member.
On both occasions it reached this policy stance based on evaluating its own
national security interests.
Nonetheless, even in the Russian media misrepresentation of Tashkent’s June 2012
protest against the CSTO transformation, masking its deeper concerns about the
legality of the changes adopted by the other members that contravened the CST charter,
some of its aspects point to Moscow managing its own interests within the CSTO.
For example, the characterization of Uzbekistan as a troublesome CSTO member
that should be removed in order to facilitate further organizational development and
unity emerged publicly in December 2011 after the Belarusian President Alyaksandr
Lukashenka suggested that Uzbekistan should be thrown out of the CSTO due to
its opposition to key policy issues. Sources in the Russian presidential administration
later confirmed, however, that the statement made by Lukashenka had been ‘requested’
by the Kremlin in order to create the impression that pressure on Uzbekistan was
not simply emanating from Moscow; in fact, the Lukashenka statement had been
‘pre-cooked.’151
The apparent crisis within the CSTO, discussed during the CSTO summit in December
2012, was therefore long in the making. But Tashkent was not the initiator of that
crisis, which had its origins in the steps being discussed at the informal CSTO summit
at Borovoye in December 2008 as a precursor to the creation of the KSOR. And this
crisis deepened with every additional step towards changing the organization away
from being rooted in collective defence acting on the principle of full consensus to
a new style organization capable of action across a wider range of security crises and
no longer requiring agreement among all its members. The Moscow CSTO summit
in December 2012 formally suspended Uzbekistan’s membership and agreed to
proceed without this key member, while Tashkent may still argue that these decisions
are illegal according to the existing framework of the organization.152
42